GM Inside News Forum banner

61 - 73 of 73 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
813 Posts
Cheaper and smaller than Ranger (and other trucks on the market). Not everyone needs something with even the capability of Ranger. Some people just need something with a bed to carry a few bags of mulch every once and a while.
My daily driver since 1989 have been Jeep XJ Cherokee's. Bought a new 89 and then bought a new 01. But I have to admit that I have grown tired of smelling gas cans for the lawnmower, bags of lawn fertilizer and bags of mulch for the garden and flower beds. But I have zero need for anything with close to a full size pickup bed. I have a utility trailer for those few and far between times I need to haul more than would fit in a mini bed. And I really love the small size of my XJ. Great maneuverability because it isn't long and wide, handles good for what it is, great as a daily driver since it isn't long. I have been considering a mid size pickup but what I really want is a true small pickup like the S-10 and old Ranger. Today's mid sizes aren't too far from what full size used to be in the 60s.
If the 2 door extended cab Colorado had the short bed of the 4 door that would be the vehicle length I want as a daily driver. So I am interested in the smaller size of the Maverick. What I dislike about it is being front wheel drive based. I simply like rear wheel driving and handling characteristics better than front wheel drive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,647 Posts
Current 1.5L specs are 180hp and 190ftlbs.
Recalling my 1998 S10 specs with a 2.2L, 120hp and 140ftlbs.
Not sure where weight will be, but I am sure that having twice as many gears can help the Maverick as well.
The Youtube channel Savage Geese reviewed the Bronco Sport with the 1.5EB and went on and on... and on about how slow it was. Of course they, like most of us here, and enthusiasts, so the power may well be more than sufficient for the average buyer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
287 Posts
The Youtube channel Savage Geese reviewed the Bronco Sport with the 1.5EB and went on and on... and on about how slow it was. Of course they, like most of us here, and enthusiasts, so the power may well be more than sufficient for the average buyer.
When you test and sample and review many products, your POV on adequate power is tainted. If you drive one product gingerly day to day to save fuel costs, and you want a compact truck, you have few other choices.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,268 Posts
I don't get this model, it will just leach buyers away from the Ranger and vice versa. The size difference doesn't look all that much to me, is it going to be far cheaper or something to draw customers? Otherwise i don't get this addition to fords lineup, i give them props for trying but if im looking for a smaller truck i think the ranger is the far better option.
When the midsize trucks came out, everyone complained that they weren't like the cheap compact trucks that they had owned in the past, and loved. I guess we will see how much people actually wanted the cheap compact trucks. I think it will do very well for the weekend home improver, or like others have said, for those who don't want to smell everything in their SUV.

I guess we will see.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,561 Posts
The Youtube channel Savage Geese reviewed the Bronco Sport with the 1.5EB and went on and on... and on about how slow it was. Of course they, like most of us here, and enthusiasts, so the power may well be more than sufficient for the average buyer.
We were discussing this over at BOF the other day, and I said this:

Bronco Sport's 0-60 is 7.9 seconds, and I will say 7.9 seconds is slow. BUT, it's all relative to what you're used to. These guys drive faster vehicles regularly, so to them it feels slow. For the segment and what most people will be looking for, it works well.


I don't know if they've driven any of the competition like the Renegade or Compass or Cherokee.

Reviews online I found say Renegade or Compass are around 9.3 seconds. The larger Cherokee does drop to 6.7.

So for the primary competition, it performs better, and for what they're targeting, I'm sure it'll be just fine.

We also don't know for sure Maverick's final powertrains yet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,846 Posts
Can't remember if I posed this here or not but 2 years ago my g/fs father came from a 2004 Ranger manual everything even transmission. He kept saying he loved that his truck was so simple and had nothing that could go wrong on it. He had almost 200k miles on it and it started acting up on him I think the fuel pump went on him one day and he had to sit in a parking lot and wait a little before it started running again. It was that experience which pushed him to get something new and trust me everyone was telling him to trade up. He came to me for help and I made a spreadsheet of all the small trucks which he wasn't really a fan of because they were all bigger than his Ranger except maybe the Nissan. He insisted on wanting a smaller cab with a larger bed.

He test drove the Colorado but they weren't discounting it at the Chevy dealership and he said it was too expensive he then test drove a new Ranger and they only had 1 on the lot that had the larger bed and smaller cab the rest they had about 20-30 all had the smaller bed and larger cab. They discounted it a ton and gave him a decent trade in value for what his truck was and he walked out paying in the low 20s for an XLT that's really well equipped like power heated seats, navigation, automatic high beams, Ford Co-Pilot 360, dual zone climate etc. So far he has been loving the truck it's a massive step up from his old Ranger. I told him about this new Maverick and he has 0 interest in it because it's car based. He uses his truck for his work and he works in AC so he always has a good amount of equipment in the bed and such. So take that for what it's worth. Granted this isn't every small truck buyer out there I am willing to bet well over half will be happy with a Maverick if they think the Ranger is too big now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,691 Posts
Discussion Starter #69 (Edited)
The cheap Maverick has been spied in its base spec without a hitch and with the solid axle, steelies, and loads of black plastic.

The rear bumper is awfully weird with a straight-across bumper step and an off-center license plate, among other iffy design choices at the bumper corners. All of that puts the truck into the "uncanny valley" of pickup designs, it's close, but where it's off it's REALLY off. I have my doubts that this will be warmly received, this market is sensitive to image to the point everything shares the exact same design formula. The Santa Cruz, despite a way more crossover-like design, doesn't have some of the oddball design choices in the rear.


63453
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
287 Posts
I have no issues with that rear bumper or an offset plate. Plates are ugly no matter where you put them. I have seen more pics today with side by side to the Ranger. I will look for the link. Looks better than the Ranger in fact.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
183 Posts
I have no issues with that rear bumper or an offset plate. Plates are ugly no matter where you put them. I have seen more pics today with side by side to the Ranger. I will look for the link. Looks better than the Ranger in fact.
This one?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,561 Posts
The cheap Maverick has been spied in its base spec without a hitch and with the solid axle, steelies, and loads of black plastic.

The rear bumper is awfully weird with a straight-across bumper step and an off-center license plate, among other iffy design choices at the bumper corners. All of that puts the truck into the "uncanny valley" of pickup designs, it's close, but where it's off it's REALLY off. I have my doubts that this will be warmly received, this market is sensitive to image to the point everything shares the exact same design formula. The Santa Cruz, despite a way more crossover-like design, doesn't have some of the oddball design choices in the rear.


View attachment 63453
I agree to an extent about the rear bumper being entirely black plastic, and that the corners should've been painted, as they appear to be plastic even on upper trims. That said, the rear bumper is purely function over form. With it being so low, there is simultaneously no need for a drop down (the Maverick's bumper step height is roughly already at the lower bumper step height of Ranger), nor can the plate be centered because the tow hitch goes in the middle of the cutout (seen in other models), again, as a function of the bumper being so low. And it's obviously cheaper to only have one mold for the bumper, so they all have the offset plate, with non-hitch models getting a center cover seen in the photo above, and hitch models having the cutout.

I don't understand your comment about the design sharing the same formula when this is a segment that nobody is in, and other "car-looking" trucklets have failed.
 

·
Registered
2020 Chevrolet Equinox LT AWD
Joined
·
11,957 Posts
This is going to be interesting. That base model though really screams el cheapo to me.
 
61 - 73 of 73 Posts
Top